Facts: After her newborn son died in her care, respondent Carissa Daniels was convicted of second degree murder (predicated upon a charge of second degree assault) in the Superior Court for Pierce County. Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed Daniels’ conviction on grounds that assault could not be a predicate offense for second degree murder and ruled that the state was barred by the prohibition against double jeopardy from retrying Daniels for homicide by abuse as the fact that the jury had opted to convict Daniels of second degree murder rather than homicide by abuse acted as an implied acquittal with regard to the charge of homicide by abuse. The state appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington, which reversed the Washington Court of Appeals, holding that retrying Daniels for homicide by abuse would not subject her to double jeopardy insofar as the jury’s silence with regard to the charge of homicide by abuse was not an implied acquittal (as such silence may reflect a divided jury rather than an implied acquittal) and there had been no final conviction terminating Daniels’ jeopardy. Daniels subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for Washington for reconsideration in light of the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Brazzel v. Washington.
Question(s): Does the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Brazzel v. Washington compel a different result with regard to the question of whether retrying Daniels for homicide by abuse would subject her to double jeopardy?
Conclusion: Justice Charles W. Johnson’s opinion for the Court reaffirmed the Court’s earlier opinion, concluding that nothing in the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Brazzel v. Washington compelled a different result.
Docket No. 76802-1 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 28610-6)
Petitioner: State of Washington
Respondent: Carissa M. Daniels
Briefs:
- Answer to Petition for Review
- Appellant Additional Brief
- Appellant Brief
- Appellants Reply
- Petition for Review
- Petitioner Supplemental Brief
- Petitioner Supplemental Brief on Motion for Reconsideration
- Respondent
- Respondent Supplemental Brief
- Statement Additional Authority
- Supplemental Brief of Respondent Filed 2-8-08
- Supplemental Petition for Review
Argument: Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:30am
[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]
Audio: Washington Supreme Court
Decided: Thursday, February 12th, 2009
Prevailing Party: Carissa M. Daniels (Respondent)
Vote: 5-4
Citation: Pending
Alexander
Johnson
(Majority)
Madsen
(Concurs)
Sanders
(Dissent)
Chambers
(Dissent)
Owens
Fairhurst
Johnson
Stephens
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Each opinion should appear next to the Justice who authored it.